Study: Instant run-off voting a hit

Published: Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, December 4, 2009 at 7:54 p.m.

Instant run-off voting was a success this year in Hendersonville, a North Carolina State University study says, based on an exit poll conducted during the November elections.

Most voters surveyed said they prefered instant run-off voting to traditional voting. That finding might build support for IRV, according to Dr. Michael Cobb, an associate professor of political science at N.C. State who designed the exit poll.

The use of IRV precludes the need for a second run-off election because voters rank candidates by order of preference. Opponents say this saves voters time and provides election results more promptly. Critics, however, say the process is confusing, makes audits and recounts impossible and can produce an outcome voters didn't intend.

Most voters said instant run-off voting was easy to understand, and they preferred ranking candidates to choosing a single candidate, an analysis of the exit polling data from the November election in Hendersonville found. It was the second time voters used IRV here.

The exit poll had a sample size of 322 voters and a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percent. Respondents randomly were asked to fill out an exit poll after casting their ballots on Election Day and during early voting.

"I am glad it went well," Henderson County Elections Director Beverly Cunningham said about the findings. "It shows that people enjoyed this style of voting, and it proved it saved money."

IRV is a method where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing only their first choice. Ranking is used to avoid a run-off election between the top two vote-getters at a later date. Hendersonville is the only city in North Carolina testing IRV.

All but 9 percent of the voters who were interviewed said IRV was either somewhat or very easy to understand, and 53 percent preferred ranking candidates. Thirty-seven percent preferred voting for only one candidate (another 10 percent had no opinion or liked both equally), according to Cobb's analysis.

Cobb said IRV also is being used in other metropolitan areas, such as San Francisco, but exit polls in these cities have sometimes found nonwhite and lower-income voters are less supportive of using IRV.

According to Cobb, there were no differences across groups of voters in Hendersonville, although race could not be reliably compared because more than 96 percent of respondents were white.

Cobb also cautions that, while voters support IRV, their support is not strong. When voters were presented with a list of reasons cited by advocates to defend IRV, a majority of voters polled did not personally agree with any of them.

"Voters seemed indifferent to these traditional justifications for using IRV and simply liked or disliked the experience of ranking for their own reasons," Cobb said. "For example, just 27 percent of voters surveyed who preferred ranking also agreed that they would be upset if they would not be allowed to rank candidates in the future.

"On the other hand, 51 percent said that voters should be allowed to rank candidates for statewide offices, while just 20 percent disagreed."

<p>Instant run-off voting was a success this year in Hendersonville, a North Carolina State University study says, based on an exit poll conducted during the November elections.</p><p>Most voters surveyed said they prefered instant run-off voting to traditional voting. That finding might build support for IRV, according to Dr. Michael Cobb, an associate professor of political science at N.C. State who designed the exit poll.</p><p>The use of IRV precludes the need for a second run-off election because voters rank candidates by order of preference. Opponents say this saves voters time and provides election results more promptly. Critics, however, say the process is confusing, makes audits and recounts impossible and can produce an outcome voters didn't intend.</p><p>Most voters said instant run-off voting was easy to understand, and they preferred ranking candidates to choosing a single candidate, an analysis of the exit polling data from the November election in Hendersonville found. It was the second time voters used IRV here.</p><p>The exit poll had a sample size of 322 voters and a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percent. Respondents randomly were asked to fill out an exit poll after casting their ballots on Election Day and during early voting.</p><p>"I am glad it went well," Henderson County Elections Director Beverly Cunningham said about the findings. "It shows that people enjoyed this style of voting, and it proved it saved money."</p><p>IRV is a method where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing only their first choice. Ranking is used to avoid a run-off election between the top two vote-getters at a later date. Hendersonville is the only city in North Carolina testing IRV.</p><p>All but 9 percent of the voters who were interviewed said IRV was either somewhat or very easy to understand, and 53 percent preferred ranking candidates. Thirty-seven percent preferred voting for only one candidate (another 10 percent had no opinion or liked both equally), according to Cobb's analysis.</p><p>Cobb said IRV also is being used in other metropolitan areas, such as San Francisco, but exit polls in these cities have sometimes found nonwhite and lower-income voters are less supportive of using IRV.</p><p>According to Cobb, there were no differences across groups of voters in Hendersonville, although race could not be reliably compared because more than 96 percent of respondents were white.</p><p>Cobb also cautions that, while voters support IRV, their support is not strong. When voters were presented with a list of reasons cited by advocates to defend IRV, a majority of voters polled did not personally agree with any of them.</p><p>"Voters seemed indifferent to these traditional justifications for using IRV and simply liked or disliked the experience of ranking for their own reasons," Cobb said. "For example, just 27 percent of voters surveyed who preferred ranking also agreed that they would be upset if they would not be allowed to rank candidates in the future.</p><p>"On the other hand, 51 percent said that voters should be allowed to rank candidates for statewide offices, while just 20 percent disagreed."</p><p>The poll was funded and administered by the state Board of Elections.</p>